Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:35:00 PM
NOTE: This was originally published in mid-December. However I was checking for typos and accidentally moved this into the "draft" category. When I moved it back to my blog, I found it has been published with today's date.
Just saw Joe Kennedy's shilling for Hugo Chavez on television. I had seen the earlier advertisements, but this is the first time I saw the new (extra-treasonous) advertisement, and I can't help but comment.
First, who but a die hard liberal would create an advertisement bashing the US government while extolling the virtues of Hugo Chavez?
Second, who but a liberal could think that Citgo is "owned by the Venezuelan people"? Sure, and Chavez's bully boys are "owned by the Venezuelan people" too. I am sure the gulags were "owned by the citizens of the USSR" too. Be honest, Joe, the company is owned by Chavez.
Last, how stupid is Kennedy to fall for this propaganda? Of course Chavez's oil company can give away oil for PR. He has no shareholders, is responsible to no one, not even "the Venezuelan people" you say own the company. But Joe, don't you think the Venezuelan people would rather get some money for their oil and better their lot in life rather than get PR for Chavez? Or do you believe they are all lined up behind their leader's plan to bash Bush?
OK. I'll talk really slowly just for Joe:
1. It is not the job of the US government to provide aid for those who have less than others. You are rich Joe, why don't you give them oil? No one is stopping you. So why do you feel that charity only works if the government confiscates it first? Is it because rich libs don't donate to charity unless forced to do so? I think it says more about your defective compassion (and love of power) than about the proper role of government.
2. Oil companies are not charitable enterprises. They exist to make a profit for the shareholders. Those shareholders, by the way, are often poor people as well. Are you suggesting a grandmother's pension should go down to pay for oil for the poor (some of whom may have more than she does)? Also, if they give away oil that reduces profit and investment, reducing jobs, or reducing pay, creating more poverty and unemployment. Better they make as much profit as possible, making more wealth, and enriching everyone.
3. If Chavez wanted to better the lot of his people, he would be doing the exact same thing, striving for maximum profits for the "Venezuelan people" who supposedly own the company. But he would rather impoverish the people of Venezuela to make himself look good and bash Bush and the "heartless Americans". In other words, for an ego boost and a PR win, he will let his people starve. But that is business as usual for communist dictators.
4. No one is stopping rich folks (like, maybe, the Kennedy family) from giving to the poor. I just don't think it is the role of the state to either confiscate wealth and give it to the poor, or to force companies to give away profits and impoverish their shareholders. Still, you are perfectly free to give away as much as you like.
Somehow I don't think Joe is springing for many barrels of oil with his own dime.
UPDATE 12/28/2007
I was watching television with my ultra-liberal mother (I describe her as "a bit left of Lenin"), and saw this advertisement. Of course, she had to say that it was "nice" that they were giving away oil, and she wondered why oil companies "couldn't just give away a little oil".
But even my liberal mother couldn't miss the obvious. "But", she added, "I wonder how much money Joe is giving."
Oh, and there is some hope, even for hard-line leftists like my mother (who is in most other ways an admirable person, I must say). When I responded by saying that those "big oil companies" were paying for her pension, and that the profits went to ordinary people who had retirement plans or small investments, she agreed that I had a point.
So keep arguing with those leftists. If I can get through to my mother, there are few who can't be reached. (Well, a few TH posters may be completely resistant to change, but maybe fewer than we think.)